1. (Lionel: Is the Magisterium saying for you that God has bound salvation to the Sacrament of Baptism and so every one in 2014 needs the baptism of water for salvation and -God is not bound by his Sacraments and so every one in 2014 does not need the baptism of water for salvation?)
2. (Lionel: Is the Magisterium saying for you that every one in 2014 does not need the baptism of water for salvation and so there is no more an ecumenism of return?
Also there are known cases of persons saved or who are going to be saved in 2014 so there is no more an ecumenism of return, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has been superseded?
3. (Lionel:The Magisterium in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 has not made a factual error for you?)
4. ( Lionel :'it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church' in Rome in 2014 for example?)
_______________________________________________________
Dear
Fr.R.,
Praised be Jesus and Our
Lady.
Please let me know what is
the teaching of the Magisterium, here for you. The questions are in
orange.
I assume this is what you will be teachng.
In
Christ
Lionel
September 1, 2014
1257
The
Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands
his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism
is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and
who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not
know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude;
this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the
Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit."
God has bound salvation to
the sacrament of Baptism, but
he himself is not bound by his sacraments.-Catechism
of the Catholic Church
(Lionel:
Is the Magisterium saying for you that God has bound salvation to the Sacrament
of Baptism and so every one in 2014 needs the baptism of water for salvation and
-God is not bound by his Sacraments and so every one in 2014 does not need the
baptism of water for salvation?)
We do not know of
any possibility ( hypothetical case) which is a known reality in the present
times(2014). We do not know of any one saved outside the Church.So we do not
know any exception to the traditional teaching on 'all' needing 'faith and
baptism'(AG 7) for salvation. There are no known cases to contradict the dogma
extra ecclesiam nulla
salus. So
how can the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the
Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, approved by Pope Benedict XVI, agree in
the Balamand Declaration (N.30) that an ecumenism of return is outdated
theology?
(Lionel:
Is the Magisterium saying for you that every one in 2014 does not need the
baptism of water for salvation and so there is no more an ecumenism of
return?
Also
there are known cases of persons saved or who are going to be saved in 2014 for
there is no more an ecumenism of return, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
has been superseded?
Do you know how? It is based on the same error in the Catechism of the Catholic Church N.1257.
30. To pave the way for future relations between the two Churches, passing beyond the outdated ecclesiology of return to the Catholic Church connected with the problem which is the object of this document, special attention will be given to the preparation of future priests and of all those who, in any way, are involved in an apostolic activity carried on in a place where the other Church traditionally has its roots. -Balamand Declaration
http://www.vatican.va/roman_
The Catechism of
the Catholic Church has
referenced the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 as if it is a
magisterial document.
1.The
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual error when it inferred that
implicit desire (baptism of desire) and being saved in invincible ignorance are
visible to us . So then it was concluded that these cases now in Heaven (but who
are also personally visible to the physical eye) were exceptions to the
traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla
salus.How can the dead be exceptions?
2.The
Letter of the Holy Office did not have the signature and seal of the Secretary
of the Holy Office.Neithe was it placed in the Acta Apostolica
Sedis.
3.It
was placed in the Denzinger by Fr.Karl
Rahner S.J with a
reference from an American magazine.
4.It
was made public by the Archdiocese of Boston three years after it was
issued by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani. It was
made public after Cardinal Francesco died.
Aside
from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 no Catholic magisterial document infers
that there are known exceptions to extra
ecclesiam nulla salus.
(Lionel:
The Magisterium in
the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 has not made a factual error for
you?)
It is upon
this factual
error in theology, the dead man visible theory , that Catholic
theologians agreed in the Balamand Declaration that there is no more an
ecumenism of return in the Catholic Church and there is a new
ecclesiology.
The same error is
there in the International Theological Commission paper Christianity and the
World Religions .'Christianity and the World
Religions' and 'The Hope of Salvation for Infants who
die without being baptiized' .
59.
The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of
Boston (1949) offers further specifications. “To gain eternal salvation,
it is not always required that a person be incorporated
in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that
one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). It is not
always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with
catechumens.-'The
Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being
baptiized'
( Lionel
:'it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as
a member of the Church' in Rome in 2014 for example?)
Really? Not always
required? Where is the known exception? Where is the defacto explicit case of
someone saved outside the Church?
This error has
been repeated by Cardinal Ratzinger in the Catechism of the Catholic Church
N.1257,when he says God is not bound to the Sacraments.
The text of the
Catechism of the Catholic Church was approved by Pope John Paul II on 25 June
1992, and promulgated by him on 11 October 1992 according to Wikpedia.
In 1997 the same error was there in Christianity and the World
Religions issued by the International Theological Commission and approved by
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith, Vatican. The same error was approved by Pope Benedict XVI in the ITC 's
The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being
baptized.
International Theological Commission, Vatican 1997.
66. In his encyclical
Mystici Corporis, Pius XII addresses the question, How are those who
attain salvation outside visible communion with the Church related to her? He
says that they are oriented to the mystical body of Christ by a yearning and
desire of which they are not aware (DS 3821).(Lionel:
Did the Magisterium of Pius XII say that they are visible to us in the present
times ? Does he say here that they are an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla
salus. ?This has to inferred by the ITC. It is wrongly inferred
?.)
The
opposition of the American Jesuit Leonard Feeney, who insisted on the
exclusivist interpretation of the expression extra ecclesiam nulla solus,
afforded the occasion for the letter of the Holy Office, dated 8 August ,1949,
to the archbishop of Boston, which rejected Feeney s interpretation and
clarified the teaching of Pius XII.( In other words there
are known exceptions outside the Church.For there to be exceptions these cases
would have to be personally known, physically visible.But how can they be seen
with the naked eye when they are in Heaven?) The letter
distinguishes between the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation
(necessitas praecepti) and the necessity of the indispensable means of
salvation (intrinseca necessitas); in relationship to the latter, the
Church is a general help for salvation (DS 3867—69).(These are hypothetical
cases. Possibilities cannot be known realities who are visible to
us) In the case of invincible ignorance the implicit desire of
belonging to the Church suffices;( and this
is relevant since these persons now in Heaven are also visible on
earth?) this desire will always be present when a man
aspires to conform his will to that of God (DS 3870). But faith, in the sense of
Hebrews 11:6, and love are always necessary with intrinsic necessity (DS
3872).
67. Vatican Council
II makes its own the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But in using
it the council explicitly directs itself to Catholics (where does it say it is
directed exclusively to Catholics ?) and limits its validity to
those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation (those who know or are in
invincible ignorance are not known to us.Only God can know who is saved as such.
So what bearing does this have on the dogma? Why mention it?).
The council holds that the affirmation is based on the necessity of faith and of
baptism affirmed by Christ (LG 14). In this way
the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII, but
emphasized more clearly the original parenthentical character of this
expression(
with the irrational inference, the visible-dead
premise?).-Christianity and the
World Religions, International Theological Commission,
Vatican.1997.
-Lionel
Andrades
_________________________________________________________________________
Dear
Lionel,
in the
Creed I profess this: “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic
Church”. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.
The same
Church that defined “extra Ecclesia nulla salus” teaches and recognizes the
doctrine we can find in the Catechism of Catholic Church, as the Holy Father
John Paul II stated clearly and authoritatively in the Apostolic Constitution
“Fidei depositum”:
“The
Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the
publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a
statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or
illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's
Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for
teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial
communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit
ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to
the undiminished light of the Kingdom!”
So the
problem is not in the Teaching of the Church, but in your wrong lecture and
interpretation (or better misinterpretation). Your questions are a series of
nonsenses. My only answer is this you can read just in this message. I think is
enough clear.
Cordially,
Fr.
R.
____________________________________________
10 comments:
Father R is correct ! The Catholic Church, many doctors of the Church, many Councils of the Church have discussed and taught about the possibilities and mercies of God in regards to Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance for centuries. This is not a new development over the last 80 years.
The ordinary magisterium of the Church has openly taught the three-fold Baptism (water, desire and blood) since the earliest days of the Church, and never has this teaching ever been condemned by the Catholic Church throughout the entire history of the Church.
The First Vatican Council commands that all Catholics must believe what the ordinary magisterium of the Church teaches, therefore no Catholic can deny the doctrines Baptism of Desire, or Baptism of Blood.
In regards to the "not visible to us" Lionel please keep in mind that with the exception of proclaimed Saints, NO judgement and Salvation is visible to us.
You are correct, Lionel in stating that The Catholic Church must believe, teach and profess that Baptism by water and No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church is the mandate and covenant specifically set down by Jesus for us to follow BUT your constant condemnation of Church teaching on BOB, BOD and Invincible Ignorance is hurting your cause and status as Catholic in your fight for the Faith.
Where VCII has greatly sinned is in the lack of fervor in teaching the faith and implying or inferring that all do not need Baptism by water and remain or convert to the Catholic faith. What has occurred the last 80 years is punishment for lack of teaching the faith with clarity. Catholics and non Catholics are confused and been feed for the most part babel without sound specific catechesis.
JMJ,
George Brenner
Father R is correct ! The Catholic Church, many doctors of the Church, many Councils of the Church have discussed and taught about the possibilities and mercies of God in regards to Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance for centuries. This is not a new development over the last 80 years.
Lionel:
Correct.
However when they assume that these cases are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, they are implying that these cases are visible and known to us.
This is irrational since these cases are in Heaven.
The ordinary magisterium of the Church has openly taught the three-fold Baptism (water, desire and blood) since the earliest days of the Church, and never has this teaching ever been condemned by the Catholic Church throughout the entire history of the Church.
Lionel:
Yes.
It was only after the 1940s has it been assumed by the Magisterium that these cases are exceptions to the dogma on salvation.
This has not been condemned by the magisterium but promoted.
The ordinary magisterium of the Church has openly taught the three-fold Baptism (water, desire and blood) since the earliest days of the Church, and never has this teaching ever been condemned by the Catholic Church throughout the entire history of the Church.
Lionel:
Yes.
It was only after the 1940s has it been assumed by the Magisterium that these cases are exceptions to the dogma on salvation.
This has not been condemned by the magisterium but promoted.
The ordinary magisterium of the Church has openly taught the three-fold Baptism (water, desire and blood) since the earliest days of the Church, and never has this teaching ever been condemned by the Catholic Church throughout the entire history of the Church.
Lionel:
Yes.
It was only after the 1940s has it been assumed by the Magisterium that these cases are exceptions to the dogma on salvation.
This has not been condemned by the magisterium but promoted.
The First Vatican Council commands that all Catholics must believe what the ordinary magisterium of the Church teaches, therefore no Catholic can deny the doctrines Baptism of Desire, or Baptism of Blood.
Lionel:
Correct so we accept the baptism of blood and desire.
No ordinary magisterium over the centuries has said that these cases refer to known cases on earth.
They can be accepted as hypothetical cases. So they do not contradict the teaching on all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation.
To assume that they are explciit for us is non traditional and irrational.
In regards to the "not visible to us" Lionel please keep in mind that with the exception of proclaimed Saints, NO judgement and Salvation is visible to us.
Lionel:
Yes, even the the proclaimed saints are not physically visible to us.
So it cannot be said that any category of people now in Heaven are physically visible exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Church for salvation.
BUT your constant condemnation of Church teaching on BOB, BOD and Invincible Ignorance is hurting your cause and status as Catholic in your fight for the Faith.
Lionel:
I accept implicit, invisible, hypothtical baptism of desire etc.It is not an exception to all needing to be formal members of the Church for salvation.
I reject explicit for us, visible in the flesh baptism of desire etc. It is irrational.
Where VCII has greatly sinned is in the lack of fervor in teaching the faith and implying or inferring that all do not need Baptism by water and remain or convert to the Catholic faith.
Lionel:
The text of Vatican Council II does not say this. Vatican Council II is Feeneyite.
AG 7 is Feeneyism and NA 2,LG 16,LG 8 are not exceptions to Feeneyism since these cases are not known to us in the present times. There are no exceptions to Feeneyism mentioned in Vatican Council II.
But where is the Cardinal, Bishop or priest who will dare say that the Council is Feeneyite?
Lionel,
As said by St. Thomas Aquinas:
"St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.
The key here is that God will show him and you are correct that the Catholic Church ALWAYS has the obligation to teach that one must be baptized with water and that there is no Salvation Outside the Catholic Church. You are completely correct in saying that the Church can not offer, imply or sanction to any individual that they may be saved in any other manner. Bod, BOB and Inv. Ignorance fall under the possible mercies of God which the Church and I readily acknowledge and trust completely in God,s hand.
JMJ,
George Brenner
Post a Comment